The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Tydeus]

Originally Posted by The Kneumatic Pnight

And it's time for another installment of...

More Random Science Information that Barely Pretains to the Topic at Hand


The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a mathematical limit to the precision of measuring a physical system. If one were to have, say, an infinite understanding of the system, say, during the Singularity (when we don't understand how the current laws of physics apply), one could necessarily make accurate predictions infinitely far into the future.

But how would one start with said infinite understanding (I think perhaps "absolute" understanding might be a better term)? Measuring a particle's velocity means that you can't as accurately measure its position. It doesn't matter if you're trying to do that at the moment of the universe's conception, or now, or any time inbetween. The principle does not change. Indeed, it would be exceedingly difficult to measure any particle's position at the beginning of the universe, when the velocities would have been fantastically large.

Tachyons travel faster than light.

....If they existed. You realize that they don't exist, right? They're theoretical particles, and there has never been any evidence of them. "Tachyon" is just the name we ascribe to any theoretical FTL (faster than light) particle. It's a name for an idea, not a particle/wave. So, no, they don't go faster than light.

Gravitons could theoretically be accelerated to above the speed of light as well, though they aren't there naturally.

How, exactly? Last time I heard, Einsteinian gravity was still the standard model...

In fact, gravity waves (which have been observed) travel at exactly the speed of light. Gravitons, like tachyons, are also theoretical. We don't even know that such particles/waves exist in the first place. It would make sense for the gravitational force to have a carrier particle as the other three do, but it has not been determined.

Forgive me for being skeptical that it would not be widely publicized if the last ~80 years of the study of gravity were overturned...

And, while not information, there's a number of things relating to 'Quantum Computers' that I, admittedly, don't really understand, but theoretically -- while they couldn't exchange information at faster than light speeds -- they might be able to use parts on the other 'side' of the universe as if they were all one piece.

Quantum entanglement, you mean? In this as well, FTL is still impossible. The time it takes for the information to travel between entangled particles is based on the speed of light. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, as far as we currently know. Information, energy, whatever.

And there are a number of other theoretical ways to skirt the speed of light. The only real issue is causality, but there's absolutely no reason to believe that causality preserves itself, rather than other forces acting to preserve causality. Hell, at a quantum level, causality is... for lack of a better word, sketchy.

No, there really is no way to skirt light speed. It's an unfortunate reality of the universe as we know it today. We may be proven wrong someday, by future discoveries, but for now all your claims regarding FTL are baseless.

Creating a universe is not so hard as one would think. There are numerous theories as to how we could create a universe -- many include the possibility of getting ourselves there as well.

And how, pray tell, would we transmit ourselves from one universe to another, when there is a very high likelihood that their laws of physics, their inherent properties are vastly different? You can't just state these outrageous claims and then provide no explanation. My claims rest on all our established knowledge of fundamental principles of the physical universe. Yours rest on what, sensationalist predicitions and wonderings in Popular Mechanics? 'Cause that's what it sounds like.

There are some who theorize that we have already created universes, albeit accidentally, in particle accelerators and the like.

I don't know if this is true, but either way, it doesn't matter. Do we have any plausible, hell, possible way to even detect such universes, let alone transmit ourselves into them, and become all-powerful beings of omniscience?

This being, of course, the ironic conclusion of our discovery that we are abjectly unimportant. Our world, our solar system, our galaxy are not the center, are not unique. Even our universe is almost certainly not unique. So much so that even we could create one.

It's an amusing reversal, no?

It is indeed.

[Sithdarth]

Couple of things:

Hawking's Radiation requires that particles travel faster than light and thereby backwards in time to escape a blackhole. That's at least one group of particles that one could call Tachyons. Well they only really travel faster than light for the time it takes to clear the event horizon.

There's also this theory with a good bit of acceptance about spacetime and torsional forces. See if you start tugging spacetime around in circles, say by way of spinning blackhole, strange things can happen. (Oh and we know at least this much happens.) The theory goes that if spacetime was chugging along at .5c and you came along and traveled in the same direction as it through it at .6c you'd be moving at 1.1c. Well appear to those of us not lucky enough to have our spacetime moving at .5c. They've actually got experiments designed, and being built, to test this. (They use some sort of intense laser light matrix to cause similar spacetime warping and particles moving at high velocity.)

Oh and while I'm at it nothing in the universe says you can't travel faster than the speed of light. Einstein just proved you can't accelerate to the speed of light. That's were you're infinite masses and stuff comes in. Hell in fact according to Einstein light shouldn't even travel at the speed of light. In that a photon's mass should increase to infinity through kinetic energy as it accelerates from a stop to the speed of light at the moment of its creation. The fact that it doesn't suggests strongly there is a way around our little speed limit. That and certain exotic materials can make light travel faster than through a vacuum.

Quantum entanglement, you mean? In this as well, FTL is still impossible. The time it takes for the information to travel between entangled particles is based on the speed of light. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, as far as we currently know. Information, energy, whatever.

That's the funny thing about Quantum entanglement. You could make two entangled quantum processor. Each processor would be able to use the bits of the other one to assist in computation no matter the distance. Now the person with processor A has no way of telling what information person with processor B fed in. However, processor B can still send that information, in a way that can never be decoded with out conventional lightspeed transmission, to processor A for processing. Processor A can then send it back to processor B and the person operating processor B can take full advantage of it. (No information other than the result from the information sent from processor B can be piggybacked for the ride. That'd make the data on the other end totally unrecoverable for the person at processor B.) You see in this way technically no information was sent anywhere. Strange as it may seem.

Physics is a wild and wacky world and best left to Physicist lest your brains explode out yer ears.

Oh and as for omnipresence, a higher dimensional being could exist in/observe every inch of our dimension and yet be smaller than us. Again its one of those crazy physics thing you can't understand without so much math you'd need to cut down a forest for the paper.

[Junkyard God]

New to this thread, but... wow. Religion turned into a discussion on black holes and quantum mechanics?

<sits back to watch mor knowledgeable people yammer>

When this gets back to religion, lemme know!

[Fifthfiend]

...Everybody say hi to Wandering Wombat.

Now everybody wave goodbye to Wandering Wombat.

[The Kneumatic Pnight]

Originally Posted by Tydeus

But how would one start with said infinite understanding (I think perhaps "absolute" understanding might be a better term)? Measuring a particle's velocity means that you can't as accurately measure its position. It doesn't matter if you're trying to do that at the moment of the universe's conception, or now, or any time inbetween. The principle does not change. Indeed, it would be exceedingly difficult to measure any particle's position at the beginning of the universe, when the velocities would have been fantastically large.

Consider it, then, an intellectual curiosity and nothing more. My point was merely that you were applying the uncertainty principle to knowing, when it only applies to measuring.

Perhaps a better example would be a perfect vacuum and an emitter that emits one photon at a specific vector and specific velocity. Until it is desturbed by something, we would know the exact location and velocity, regardless of wave-particle duality.

Whether or not such a set up could concievably be constructed does not interest me.

Originally Posted by Tydeus

....If they existed. You realize that they don't exist, right? They're theoretical particles, and there has never been any evidence of them.

Forgive me, I should have included the word 'would'. I believe that was my intention, but I cannot be certain.

Pretaining to the actual sentence, you would be right, up until you said they don't exist. Rather, "We don't know if they exist."

Admittedly, this may not be the best thread to get into theoretical particle physics, but that has always been something of my main interest. And there are a number of bizarrely named mathematical models and almost-repsected theories that postulate their existance.

And forgive me, but, models relied on neutrinos before we could experimentally prove them, becasue they smoothed out mathematical problems. Tachyons do the same thing.

Even special relativity has no real problem with tachyons, though it does so alongside certain demonstrations of why a tachyon wouldn't have to violate causality, so admittedly, not the most condusive point -- but, again, we have no reason to believe causality is absolute.

So, to sum up: theoretical, but well-backed theoretical.

Originally Posted by Tydeus

"Tachyon" is just the name we ascribe to any theoretical FTL (faster than light) particle.

Not true. Well, okay, I don't know if 'Superbradyon' has been accepted by more than just a few of us (I also prefer 'Dyson Swarm').

Originally Posted by Tydeus

It's a name for an idea, not a particle/wave. So, no, they don't go faster than light.

Whether or not they exist has already been addressed, I would just like to point out that the idea of a particle that travels faster than light does involve particles traveling faster than light.

Just sayin'.

Originally Posted by Tydeus

How, exactly? Last time I heard, Einsteinian gravity was still the standard model...

Well, in a sense. However, here's the big gravity 'connundrum' if you will...

The problem is, that gravity seems to drop off too quickly compared to the Einsteinian model when relating to very large distances. The theoretical solutions for this are as follows:

1. The General Relativity model is completely perfect, and there is a form of energy that mysteriously repells itself and expands spacetime -- and also that we have never seen and cannot detect, but mysteriously makes up more of the universe than anything else ever.

2. The model is wrong and gravity becomes weaker at larger distances than the General Relativity model predicts. (A possible explaination is the String Theory model of a Graviton, depending on how difficult it is for them to escape the 'brane). This would, of course, invalidate the most accurate, experimentally proven model of gravity, but if we just use Newton's equations, we'll probably end up close enough, anyway.

3. Nothing is causing it. Spacetime merely expands for no explainable reason.

Originally Posted by Tydeus

In fact, gravity waves (which have been observed) travel at exactly the speed of light.

Ah, yes, the infamous Kopeikin and Fomalont observations. Consensus among relativists is that their observations were -- for lack of a word that fits my meaning -- wrong. What I mean is that most think the tests were fundamentally flawed.

If I have misinterpereted, please direct me to these observations, because an accurate observation of this area of general relativity that I've not seen would be fantastic.

Originally Posted by Tydeus

Gravitons, like tachyons, are also theoretical. We don't even know that such particles/waves exist in the first place. It would make sense for the gravitational force to have a carrier particle as the other three do, but it has not been determined.

I see I had not made it as clear as I could -- nay, should have -- that I was speaking in theoreticals, these aren't things pulled out of some physicist's ass. They're the method by which gravetic interaction on a quantum level makes any kind of sense. (Hehe, making sense on a quantum level).

Originally Posted by Tydeus

Quantum entanglement, you mean? In this as well, FTL is still impossible. The time it takes for the information to travel between entangled particles is based on the speed of light. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, as far as we currently know. Information, energy, whatever.

Sithdarth handled this better than I possibly could. It's basically the EPR(B) paradox. Which was, ironically, a criticism of Quantum Mechanics.

Although, strictly speaking, from the looks of things Quantum Mechanics will be the one doing the lasting.

Oh, and on this note...

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

See if you start tugging spacetime around in circles, say by way of spinning blackhole, strange things can happen.

Just to get the point across that this isn't some bizarre thought experiment, we have experimentally proven that the rotation of the Earth torques spacetime. The real question is how much, and so we designing a sattelite to measure it.

Originally Posted by krylo

Yet we, their creators, aren't even conscience of their existence.

Yes, EXACTLY! Hell, even if we could figure out (I mean, it's possible, though I think only String Theory gravity poses any current hope of meaningfully detecting these things if we don't know about them) and even if we could get here (and yes, I will admit this is a stretch) it wouldn't matter. 'Cause then we'd just end up people in a universe. Whoop-de-doo.

The point was, creating a universe is not some bizarrely ineffable physics of some alternate universe.

At the risk of being repetative...

Originally Posted by Tydeus

all-powerful beings of omniscience?

Assumption.

The 'barely pretaining to the topic' exclaimer is right there. (Though I suppose technically, it relates to arguments being made in the thread, which would be the 'barely' part).

Hell, though, I mean, I think about 35% of this post is composed of jokes.

I'm just glad to be a part of a religious discussion who takes everything under-seriously and cannot get on the religion topic.

As a stark contrast to a bunch of other people.

It's performance art!

Edit: Some stuff removed because it barely made sense. I'll get back to it when I can word it... 'non-sucky'.

[Loki, The Fallen]

I'd like to thank God, without which none of this would be possible.

Oh, and praise be to the White Unicorn.

Now, perhaps I can start a sub-topic. I have heard, seen, been made aware of a group of 'Christians' who claim a hatred toward the Jews. (You know the type, the kind who 'liked Passion of the Christ' because it 'made Jews look all mean and stuff'). Perhaps someone from that camp could explain that to me, as it's one of those things I can't get my head to understand. I mean, I've read alot from the Source, and could not see where people get that line of thought from.

There, I got to ask a question! Let's watch the answers as they unfold, shall we?

-Edited because I missed my Closing Parentheses-

[42PETUNIAS]

All the stuff about travelling faster than light.

I don't see how this is really all that relevant. I mean, religon is essentially a thing of faith, using science to prove it wrong isn't really effective, i mean, if he did in fact create everything, then he must be above the general laws of science, and secondly, it's not really going to get you anywhere.

Also, this thread is already going way too fast. I spent the entire school day (Everyone at our school has a laptop) reading what had been written while I was asleep. It really doesn't need any more than that.

I think this thread should take a step aside from arguing about the logical failings of religon, and perhaps everyone should state their own personal religious experiences, their religon, and why they belong to it. Despite the fact that this forum doesn't seem to be too diverse (Everyone seems to be either Christian, or agnostic/atheistic), this would probably serve as better conversation than arguing over books thousands of years old.

Personally, I was born and baptised catholic. My family wasn't very religious, (We only went to church about twice a year, and even then my father didn't come, because he's Anglican). I never really liked church, the one we attended was always pretty boring, and I didn't know all that much background information, so I didn't understand much. I always considered myself catholic however, until late in 8th grade. I really thought about what I believed, I read the old testament of the bible, started the new testament (although I didn't finish it.) I decided that I didn't believe in a God. Since then I've always thought of myself somewhere between atheism and agnosticism. If there is a god, or divine force (Which is an idea I like much more than the image of a human-like being sitting up there in the clouds) I think it either simply created the universe, or life on earth, or, providing there is a specific god, I really like the Bahai just because it seems really cool to me, that, and the fact that they had a huge-ass temple a few miles away from my old house in Chicago.

Anyway, I'd really like to hear what religons different people are, and why.

Edit: I also believe that if there is a god, he wants us to be good people, and that he has the wisdom to look past what religon we were brought up in or joined. I don't mean to be inflammatory, but the Christian idea that God cares about people accepting Jesus, not their good deeds, just seems like the people writing went "Hey, I know how we can get more donations..."

[Loki, The Fallen]

42PETUNIAS' first comment:

Also, this thread is already going way too fast. I spent the entire school day (Everyone at our school has a laptop) reading what had been written while I was asleep. It really doesn't need any more than that.

It's a pretty heated discussion so far. There are reasons for some of the subtopics, so I don't think we should advocate stopping them. They are simply speaking of thier beliefs.

And if you think today was bad, you should have come back after 24 hours from Sunday Night, I had around 10 pages to sift through.

On Topic, also from 42PETUNIAS:

I don't mean to be inflammatory, but the Christian idea that God cares about people accepting Jesus, not their good deeds, just seems like the people writing went "Hey, I know how we can get more donations..."

From what I've read, there is no need to fear being considered inflammatory, considering the matters being discussed. You're asking questions, and stating beliefs. It's your belief.

I will disagree about the whole "Hey, I know how we can get more donations" part, as there is no requirement in that religion to give money. Of course, some denominations may differ. But I can see how one can look at it, as simply a group of men finding a way to market a product by changing the flavor. I don't believe it myself.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Just throwing something in here. It makes absolutely no sense than an omnipotent being would need something like hell as a "deterrent" from sin. The entire point of a deterrent is to stop people from doing things you don't want them to do, which an omnipotent being, especially one that made the very people in question, would never have to resort to if it really didn't want people to do those things. The only way hell pans out is as some sort of sadistic experiment, then. Give beings urges and punish them if they don't resist. It's kind of like putting mice in rooms full of baited mousetraps.

[42PETUNIAS]

Originally Posted by Zak

Just throwing something in here. It makes absolutely no sense than an omnipotent being would need something like hell as a "deterrent" from sin. The entire point of a deterrent is to stop people from doing things you don't want them to do, which an omnipotent being, especially one that made the very people in question, would never have to resort to if it really didn't want people to do those things. The only way hell pans out is as some sort of sadistic experiment, then. Give beings urges and punish them if they don't resist. It's kind of like putting mice in rooms full of baited mousetraps.

Or maybe there is no hell, and the only reason that one is talked of is so that people are scared into doing good things and accepting Jesus. Who says God wouldn't deliver empty threats?

Originally Posted by Loki

there is no requirement in that religion to give money.

Still, if people knew that they didn't have to go to church to get into heaven, being a good person was the only requirement, then many fewer people would probably attend, giving the churches less money. It's as simple as that.